CCMIN020712 - Laserfiche WebLink

not 1,518 square feet if subtracted from 1,710 square feet. However, in the end the size does not matter; any project that would create a wall of house only 10-12 feet away from a Heritage home in one of the most historic and vulnerable neighborhoods, is wrong. He stated that on the site map there were two good reasons why Fred Hall in the early 1900's excavated the area where the cottage sits. First, a flat site was needed for the carriages and Clydesdale horses used to haul hay and grain for their thriving business and the flat site is what planning staff referred previously as an independent lot. This is 1115th of an acre site of the proposed project. Mr. Hall was also making certain that the carriage house, and later the rental cottage, did not disturb views from the home or block light from entering the windows of his beloved home. Mr. Bourg displayed the Hall House with the windows looking out facing west at sunsets which he said does not block views or light. The peak of the cottage is placed going towards the house so one can look over top of it. He then presented a view of the story poles from their kitchen window at 4512 Second Street. The story poles are not there now and the Hall House looks close. The story poles really show what it looks like, which is a clear blocking of light and views from all of the main floor windows. It also clearly demonstrates how detrimental the project is to his home and yard, and places a big new home 5 feet from their property line and 7 feet from his wife's ceramic studio. Their privacy, quality of life, property values, and enjoyment of their yard would be very negatively affected. It is from the Hall Home though that one can really get an idea of the mass and scale. He showed the cottage to scale which he said is 15 feet high at its peak. The home is 23 feet and he showed the mid-window level as viewed from the Hall Home. He presented the site map again and said all windows of the Hall Home which total 8 windows, look out to the massing of wall. In addition to these comments, Mr. Bourg said the reports, as ordered by staff and the Commission, are inadequate and poorly done. First, the shadow study asked for by the Planning Commission was done by the applicant himself. Second, the Heritage Tree Report was done without the consultant even asking permission to see the tree up close; it was done by viewing the tree from the sidewalk. The report concluded that the tree would not be harmed by excavation as close as 23 feet from their 80-100 year old Heritage Oak tree. He hired his own arborist who concluded the opposite—that in his words, "insufficient due diligence and consideration has been given to the future health of this specimen Heritage tree. I recommend a compensation package before any construction takes place should your tree ultimately decline or die as a result of this project." Based on this advice, if any construction takes place at 205 Neal, he would insist on an appraisal of the tree and he would ask that a bond be set aside covering the appraisal amount for up to 10 years. The Municipal Code's one year term is not sufficient, as damages can take as long as 10 years to show up, and as pointed out by his arborist. Third, the historical and architectural evaluation was also fraught with problems. He then turned over the presentation to his wife, Christine, to discuss this. Christine Bourg, Appellant, said at the request of the planning department, an historic report for the Hall Home and cottage at 205 and 215 Neal was completed by Franklin Macci in June of 2011. Mr. Macci's task was to evaluate these properties according to guidelines set up by the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). She presented a copy of guidelines pertinent to this which speaks to local designation of property as a way to have it placed on the California Register; that a property "must be greater than 50 years old, significant at the local, State or National level". They believe this property would qualify based on the lives of persons important to local history, and also that it embodies distinctive characteristics of the type, period, or method of construction. In doing this report, Mr. Macci used few local resources and even referred to Mirin Hall; Buford and Blanche's daughter, as a family informant. Mr. Macci concluded that the Hall family was not connected to any pivotal contributions to the history of Pleasanton. The house at 215 Neal has been added onto and the cottage at 205 Neal has been changed from its original design as a carriage house. Therefore, neither house qualifies for the California Register. Mr. Macci also concluded that the property has not been recognized as a contributor to a larger historic district. Mr. Macci's conclusion leaves the 215 Neal Drive house unprotected and gives support for allowing the demolition of the cottage and building of a new two-story City Council Minutes Page 10 of 25 February 7,2012